Preference heterogeneity and coorientation as determinants of perceived informational influence

https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(89)90021-0Get rights and content

Abstract

This study examined how characteristics of a referent and of a service affect perceived referent influence in the recommendation of a service provider. The study experimentally manipulated the source (referent) of influence to be dissimilar to the consumer or similar (cooriented) to the consumer. The study contrasted service choices in which consumers have widely differing tastes and preferences (high- preference heterogeneity) and service choices in which consumers have little difference in tastes and preferences (low-preference heterogeneity). Results support the importance of both source coorientation and preference heterogeneity in determining the amount of informational influence.

References (43)

  • Johan Arndt

    Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (August 1967)
  • William O. Bearden et al.

    Refernce Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (September 1982)
  • William O. Bearden et al.

    Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (March 1989)
  • Ellen Berscheid

    Opinion Change and Communicator-Communicatee Similarity and Dissimilarity

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (December 1966)
  • Stewart Bither et al.

    Preferences Between Product Consultants: Choices Vs Preference Functions

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (June 1977)
  • T.G. Brock

    Communicator-Recipient Similarity and Decision Change

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (June 1965)
  • Jacqueline Johnson Brown et al.

    Social Ties and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (December 1987)
  • Robert E. Burnkrant et al.

    Informational and Normative Social Influence in Buyer Behavior

    Journal of Consumer Research

    (December 1975)
  • D. Byrne

    The Attraction Paradigm

    (1971)
  • Joel B. Cohen et al.

    Informational Social Influence and Product Evaluation

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (February 1972)
  • M. Deutsch et al.

    A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influence Upon Individual Judgment

    Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

    (1955)
  • Peter R. Dickson et al.

    Market Segmentation, Product Differentiation, and Marketing Strategy

    Journal of Marketing

    (April 1987)
  • Walter B. Earle

    The Social Context of Social Comparison: Reality Versus Reassurance?

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (June 1986)
  • James E. Engel et al.

    How Information is Used to Adopt an Innovation

    Journal of Advertising Research

    (December 1969)
  • James E. Engel et al.

    Consumer Behavior

    (1986)
  • Russell Fazio

    Motives for Social Comparison: The Construction-Validation Distinction

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (October 1979)
  • Lawrence F. Feick et al.

    The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Marketplace Information

    Journal of Marketing

    (January 1987)
  • Feldman, Sidney P., and Spencer, Merlin C., The Effect of Personal Influence in the Selection of Consumer Services, in...
  • Fiske, Raymond P., Toward a Consumption/Evaluation Process Model for Services, in Marketing of Services. J. H. Donnelly...
  • George R. Goethals

    Consensus and Modality in the Attribution Process: The Role of Similarity and Information

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (January 1972)
  • George R. Goethals et al.

    Similarity in the Influence Process: The Belief-Value Distinction

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (January 1973)
  • Cited by (57)

    • Effect of brand popularity as an advertising cue on tourists’ shopping behavior

      2018, Journal of Destination Marketing and Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      For instance, when three consumers buy and use the same cosmetics, all of their evaluations may be different (e.g. great, good, and bad). The wide variation arises from different criteria, such as color, price, and size, that they use in evaluating the quality of cosmetics (Price, Feick, & Higie, 1989). Accordingly, preference heterogeneity of cosmetics is high.

    • Host's interpersonal influence on guests in a home sales party

      2015, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
      Citation Excerpt :

      Consumers often turn to others who are similar to them for advice when making purchase decisions (Bither and Wright, 1977). In addition, informational reference group influence is greater among co-oriented referents (Kelman 1961, Price et al., 1989). Higher degrees of similarity lead to a convergence of opinion, while dissimilarity changes a persons׳ opinion away from the advocated position (Berscheid, 1966).

    • Decision Difficulty in the Age of Consumer Empowerment

      2014, Journal of Consumer Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thus, consumer skepticism regarding the truthfulness of information is pervasive, substantially contributing to decision difficulty. To alleviate concerns over the reliability of information sources, consumers often seek advice from people perceived to be similar on relevant social or demographic characteristics (Brown & Reingen, 1987; Gino, Shang, & Croson, 2009; Price, Feick, & Higie, 1989), even displaying an egocentric bias and inferring that ambiguous information sources have similar tastes to their own (Naylor, Lamberton, & Norton, 2011). Review sites also enable consumers to inspect a reviewer’s database of past reviews to assess their overall past agreement rate with the advisor.

    • Word-of-mouth and the forecasting of consumption enjoyment

      2013, Journal of Consumer Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      On the other hand, consumers (and marketers) often do know whether liking of a product varies at the aggregate level. Such knowledge is captured by the notion of preference heterogeneity, i.e., the extent to which preferences for a specific product or service vary within a population (Fieck & Higie, 1992; Gershoff & West, 1998; Price et al., 1989). In terms of a preference map, products with highly heterogeneous preferences (e.g., restaurants, nightclubs, paintings) are represented by a diffuse set of ideal points, while products with more homogenous preferences (e.g., mechanics, desk lamps, dry cleaners) are represented by a tightly clustered set of ideal points.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text